Unemployment: Essex

Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 
	(1)  how many people in Castle Point constituency had been claiming jobseeker's allowance for  (a) less than six months,  (b) between six and 12 months,  (c) between 12 months and two years and  (d) more than two years on the latest date for which information is available;
	(2)  what the average length of time was for which a claimant resident in Castle Point constituency to be in receipt of jobseeker's allowance in each of the last  (a) 12 months and  (b) five years;
	(3)  how many people aged between 16 and 24 years in  (a) Essex and  (b) Castle Point had been unemployed for over (i) six and (ii) 12 months in each of the last six months;
	(4)  how many people aged between 16 and 24 years in  (a) Essex and  (b) Castle Point constituency were unemployed in (i) May 1997 and (ii) each of the last six months for which figures are available.

Angela Smith: I have been asked to reply.
	The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority to reply.
	 Letter from Jil Matheson, dated December 2009:
	As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Questions asking how many people in Castle Point constituency have been claiming jobseeker's allowance for (a) less than six months, (b) between six and 12 months, (c) between 12 months and two years and (d) more than two years on the latest date for which information is available; what the average length of time was for which claimant resident in Castle Point constituency to be in receipt of jobseeker's allowance in each of the last (a) 12 months and (b) five years; how many people aged between 16 and 24 years in (a) Essex and (b) Castle Point have been unemployed for over (i) six and (ii) 12 months in each of the last six months; and how many people aged between 16 and 24 years in (a) Essex and (b) Castle Point constituency were unemployed in (i) May 1997 and (ii) each of the last six months for which figures are available (307503, 307504, 307505, 307509).
	The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles unemployment statistics for local areas from the Annual Population Survey and its predecessor the annual Labour Force Survey (LFS) following International Labour Organisation (ILO) definitions.
	However, estimates of unemployment for the requested age band, duration and geographies are not available. As an alternative, questions relating to unemployment have also been answered using Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) data.
	Table 1 attached, shows the number of persons resident in Castle Point constituency claiming JSA for (a) up to 26 weeks, (b) over 26 and up to 52 weeks, (c) over 52 and up to 104 weeks and (d) over 104 weeks in October 2009.
	Table 2 attached, shows the median length of live claims during the last 12 months up to the latest available period in October 2009, and for October of each of the last 5 years.
	Table 3 attached, shows the number of persons, aged 16 to 24, claiming JSA, in the requested geographies, for (a) over 26 weeks and (b) over 52 weeks in October 2009 and the previous 5 months.
	Table 4 attached, shows the number of persons, aged 16 to 24, claiming JSA in the requested geographies in (a) May 1997 and (b) from May to October 2009.
	National and local area estimates for many labour market statistics, including employment, unemployment and claimant count are available on the NOMIS website at:
	http://www.nomisweb.co.uk
	
		
			  Table 1: Number of persons( 1)  resident in Castle Point claiming jobseeker's allowance by length of claim, October 2009 
			   Number 
			 Up to 26 weeks 1,265 
			 Over 26 weeks up to 52 weeks 400 
			 Over 52 weeks up to 104 weeks 115 
			 Over 104 weeks 20 
			 (1) Length of claim data is only available for computerised claims, which account for 99.7 per cent. of all claims.  Note: Data rounded to nearest five.  Source: Jobcentre Plus Administrative System. 
		
	
	
		
			  Table 2: Median length of claim of jobseeker's allowance of persons( 1)  resident in Castle Point constituency 
			   Median length of claim (months) 
			 October 2004 11.2 
			 October 2005 11.8 
			 October 2006 12.8 
			 October 2007 11.1 
			 October 2008 8.9 
			 November 2008 8.2 
			 December 2008 8.6 
			 January 2009 9.3 
			 February 2009 9.6 
			 March 2009 10.7 
			 April 2009 11.0 
			 May 2009 12.5 
			 June 2009 13.6 
			 July 2009 14.1 
			 August 2009 13.8 
			 September 2009 13.7 
			 October 2009 13.1 
			 (1) Length of claim data is only available for computerised claims, which account for 99.7 per cent. of all claims.  Source: Jobcentre Plus Administrative System. 
		
	
	
		
			  Table 3: Number of persons( 1)  age 16 to 24 claiming jobseeker's allowance by duration of claim 
			   Essex  Castle Point 
			   Over 26 weeks  Over 52 weeks  Over 26 weeks  Over 52 weeks 
			 May 2009 1,450 110 80 5 
			 June 2009 1,575 125 80 5 
			 July 2009 1,535 140 85 5 
			 August 2009 1,680 150 85 10 
			 September 2009 1,525 160 75 10 
			 October 2009 1,390 160 75 10 
			 (1) Length of claim data is only available for computerised claims, which account for 99.7 per cent. of all claims.  Note: Data rounded to nearest five.  Source: Jobcentre Plus Administrative System. 
		
	
	
		
			  Table 4: Number of persons age 16 to 24 claiming jobseeker's allowance resident in Essex and Castle Point 
			   Essex  Castle Point 
			 May 1997 6,135 425 
			 May 2009 8,520 595 
			 June 2009 8,240 545 
			 July 2009 8,440 565 
			 August 2009 8,600 570 
			 September 2009 8,420 580 
			 October 2009 8,385 560 
			  Note: Data rounded to nearest five.  Source: Jobcentre Plus Administrative System.

Public Expenditure

Mark Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much funding for  (a) the arts,  (b) heritage,  (c) active leisure and  (d) museums (i) his Department and (ii) each publicly-funded body within his Department's responsibility has provided for (A) England, (B) the South West Region and (C) each local authority area within the South West Region from 1997 to 2009.

Ben Bradshaw: My Department does not hold the information in the format you requested, however, it holds information on cultural recreational and sporting services by region as shown in the following table. These figures were published by HM Treasury in the Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis (PESA).
	
		
			  £ million 
			   Cultural services  Recreational and sporting services 
			   England  South West  England  South West 
			 2003-04 858.2 77.7 131.7 6.8 
			 2004-05 822.0 91.4 160.7 9.4 
			 2005-06 880.0 80.6 129.3 3.9 
			 2006-07(1) 1,326.6 153.7 327.9 28.0 
			 2007-08 1,240.5 123.0 331.9 27.1 
			 (1) In 2006-07 HM Treasury adopted a functional analysis based on the United Nations Classification of the Functions of Government (COFOG). This means that lottery spending is allocated to specific areas of spend when it was previously recorded as a separate line. 
		
	
	Information for previous years is not available on a consistent basis.

Children: Day Care

Glenda Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many children aged  (a) three and  (b) four years old are receiving 15 hours a week of free nursery education in Hampstead and Highgate constituency.

Dawn Primarolo: Latest available data as at January 2009 shows there are no three and four year old children receiving 15 hours a week of free nursery education in Hampstead and Highgate constituency.
	Currently, all three and four year old children are entitled to 12.5 hours of free early education a week for 38 weeks per year. Since September 2009, all local authorities have been delivering an extended offer of 15 funded hours a week to their 25 per cent. most disadvantaged three and four year olds. This is in addition to 34 pathfinder local authorities already delivering an extended offer of 15 hours a week to all children in their area. Camden local authority, in which the Hampstead and Highgate constituency falls, is not one of the pathfinders.
	From September 2010 all eligible three and four year old children will be entitled to 15 hours a week free provision over no fewer than 38 weeks of the year offered on a more flexible basis to better meet families' needs.

Crown Prosecution Service

Edward Garnier: To ask the Solicitor-General how many cases were discontinued by the Crown Prosecution Service at  (a) committal and  (b) a later stage for reasons of (i) a lack of preparation and (ii) delay in each of the last five years; and how many cases were dismissed by (A) magistrates courts and (B) Crown courts for those reasons in each of those five years.

Vera Baird: Cases are rarely discontinued at committal for reasons of lack of preparation or delay. If a committal is not ready, the CPS tends to seek an adjournment to enable the file preparation to be completed. If the adjournment is not granted, the CPS will have to offer no evidence and the committal is 'discharged'.
	Table A shows all reasons for which cases were discharged at committal during the four years for which data is available. Each applicable reason is also expressed as a proportion of all completed cases in magistrates courts. Table B shows the reasons for which case were dropped in the Crown court following committal for trial, both by volume and as a proportion of completed Crown court cases.
	No comparable analysis is maintained of the reasons why cases result in dismissal by the magistrates or acquittal by the jury, as these outcomes are the decision of the court rather than of the prosecution.
	Proceedings for an offence that has been discharged at committal because the prosecution is unable to proceed may be re-instituted. After a committal has been discharged, the prosecutor will liaise with the police to consider whether the proceedings can be re-instituted.
	
		
			  Table A: Reasons for discharged committals 
			   2005-06  2006-07  2007-08  2008-09 
			   Vol  %  Vol  %  Vol  %  Vol  % 
			  Total Evidential Reasons 1,205 0.1 1,021 0.1 855 0.1 858 0.1 
			 E1 Inadmissible evidence-Breach of PACE 4 0.0 6 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0 
			 E2 Inadmissible evidence-other than Breach of PACE 20 0.0 15 0.0 1 0.0 6 0.0 
			 E3 Unreliable confession 0 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0 
			 E4 Conflict of evidence 57 0.0 81 0.0 88 0.0 72 0.0 
			 E5 Essential medical evidence missing 43 0.0 32 0.0 22 0.0 29 0.0 
			 E6 Essential forensic evidence missing 213 0.0 198 0.0 224 0.0 192 0.0 
			 E7 Essential legal element missing 704 0.1 563 0.1 367 0.0 433 0.0 
			 E8 Unreliable witness or witnesses 36 0.0 26 0.0 29 0.0 15 0.0 
			 E9 Key victim does not support case 31 0.0 25 0.0 35 0.0 35 0.0 
			 E10 Key witness does not support case 7 0.0 4 0.0 3 0.0 15 0.0 
			 E11 Unreliable/lack of identification 90 0.0 70 0.0 83 0.0 61 0.0 
			  
			  Total Public Interest Reasons 60 0.0 63 0.0 82 0.0 62 0.0 
			 P12 Effect on victim's physical or mental health 0 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 
			 P13 Suspect/Defendant elderly or in significant ill health 1 0.0 2 0.0 7 0.0 8 0.0 
			 P14 Loss or harm minor and single incident 4 0.0 2 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 
			 P15 Loss or harm put right 1 0.0 1 0.0 5 0.0 0 0.0 
			 P16 Long delay between offence/charge or trial 8 0.0 6 0.0 10 0.0 9 0.0 
			 P17 Very small or nominal penalty 6 0.0 2 0.0 6 0.0 5 0.0 
			 P18 Other indictment/sentence 26 0.0 36 0.0 45 0.0 26 0.0 
			 P19 Informer or other public interest immunity issues 1 0.0 1 0.0 3 0.0 1 0.0 
			 P20 Caution more suitable 10 0.0 11 0.0 4 0.0 10 0.0 
			 P21 Youth of offender 0 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 
			 P36 Inappropriate to compel victim 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 
			 P37 Inappropriate to compel witness 1 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 
			  
			  Total Prosecution Unable to Proceed Reasons 1,203 0.1 1,159 0.1 1,246 0.1 1,044 0.1 
			 U22 File not received from police-adjournment refused 693 0.1 580 0.1 616 0.1 556 0.1 
			 U23 CPS not ready-adjournment refused 471 0.0 541 0.1 583 0.1 467 0.1 
			 U24 Offence taken into consideration 6 0.0 1 0.0 3 0.0 2 0.0 
			 U25 Victim refuses to give evidence or retracts 27 0.0 32 0.0 43 0.0 15 0.0 
			 U26 Other witness refuses to give evidence or retracts 5 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 
			 U27 Victim fails to attend unexpectedly 0 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.0 
			 U29 Police witness fails to attend unexpectedly 0 0.0 3 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 
			 U30 Victim intimidation 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 
			 U32 Documents produced at court 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0 
			  
			  Total Other Reasons 154 0.0 82 0.0 47 0.0 20 0.0 
			 O33 Bind over acceptable 10 0.0 6 0.0 3 0.0 3 0.0 
			 O34 Acquittal after trial 20 0.0 19 0.0 21 0.0 6 0.0 
			 O35 Other 124 0.0 57 0.0 23 0.0 11 0.0 
			  
			  Total discharged committals 2,622 0.2 2,325 0.2 2,230 0.2 1,984 0.2 
			  
			  Total completed magistrates court cases 1,068,745 - 988,032 - 966,665 - 928,708 - 
		
	
	
		
			  Table B: Reasons for prosecutions dropped in the Crown court 
			   2005-06  2006-07  2007-08  2008-09 
			   Vol  %  Vol  %  Vol  %  Vol  % 
			  Total Evidential Reasons 6,559 7.2 6,712 7.4 7,297 7.5 7,489 7.2 
			 E1 Inadmissible evidence-Breach of PACE 58 0.1 43 0.0 61 0.1 40 0.0 
			 E2 Inadmissible evidence-other than Breach of PACE 140 0.2 61 0.1 72 0.1 51 0.0 
			 E3 Unreliable confession 23 0.0 11 0.0 28 0.0 13 0.0 
			 E4 Conflict of evidence 1,009 1.1 1,136 1.3 1,279 1.3 1,421 1.4 
			 E5 Essential medical evidence missing 61 0.1 41 0.0 53 0.1 44 0.0 
			 E6 Essential forensic evidence missing 224 0.2 197 0.2 287 0.3 276 0.3 
			 E7 Essential legal element missing 1,977 2.2 2,236 2.5 2,403 2.5 2,397 2.3 
			 E8 Unreliable witness or witnesses 1,120 1.2 1,158 1.3 1,048 1.1 1,052 1.0 
			 E9 Key victim does not support case 990 1.1 1,048 1.2 1,126 1.2 1,226 1.2 
			 E10 Key witness does not support case 275 0.3 290 0.3 292 0.3 317 0.3 
			 E11 Unreliable/lack of identification 682 0.7 491 0.5 648 0.7 652 0.6 
			  
			  Total Public Interest Reasons 1,539 1.7 1,538 1.7 1,795 1.8 1,721 1.7 
			 P12 Effect on victim's physical or mental health 137 0.1 112 0.1 119 0.1 102 0.1 
			 P13 Suspect/Defendant elderly or in significant ill health 175 0.2 177 0.2 202 0.2 199 0.2 
			 P14 Loss or harm minor and single incident 14 0.0 32 0.0 22 0.0 31 0.0 
			 P15 Loss or harm put right 32 0.0 42 0.0 45 0.0 40 0.0 
			 P16 Long delay between offence/charge or trial 80 0.1 88 0.1 91 0.1 90 0.1 
			 P17 Very small or nominal penalty 61 0.1 75 0.1 99 0.1 103 0.1 
			 P18 Other indictment/sentence 753 0.8 769 0.9 904 0.9 885 0.9 
			 P19 Informer or other public interest immunity issues 157 0.2 107 0.1 113 0.1 89 0.1 
			 P20 Caution more suitable 78 0.1 78 0.1 93 0.1 96 0.1 
			 P21 Youth of offender 9 0.0 2 0.0 7 0.0 9 0.0 
			 P36 Inappropriate to compel victim 35 0.0 38 0.0 72 0.1 50 0.0 
			 P37 Inappropriate to compel witness 8 0.0 18 0.0 28 0.0 27 0.0 
			  
			  Total Prosecution Unable to Proceed Reasons 2,922 3.2 2,785 3.1 2,318 2.4 2,171 2.1 
			 U22 File not received from police-adjournment refused 54 0.1 40 0.0 25 0.0 21 0.0 
			 U23 CPS not ready-adjournment refused 50 0.1 47 0.1 38 0.0 46 0.0 
			 U24 Offence taken into consideration 41 0.0 49 0.1 34 0.0 45 0.0 
			 U25 Victim refuses to give evidence or retracts 1,729 1.9 1,596 1.8 1,206 1.2 1,039 1.0 
			 U26 Other witness refuses to give evidence or retracts 207 0.2 191 0.2 167 0.2 181 0.2 
			 U27 Victim fails to attend unexpectedly 542 0.6 624 0.7 614 0.6 627 0.6 
			 U28 Other civilian witness fails to attend unexpectedly 216 0.2 174 0.2 177 0.2 151 0.1 
			 U29 Police witness fails to attend unexpectedly 37 0.0 37 0.0 32 0.0 29 0.0 
			 U30 Victim intimidation 1 0.0 5 0.0 1 0.0 6 0.0 
			 U31 Other civilian witness intimidation 2 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 
			 U32 Documents produced at court 43 0.0 20 0.0 24 0.0 25 0.0 
			  
			  Total Other Reasons 1,643 1.8 1,255 1.4 1,099 1.1 817 0.8 
			 O33 Bind over acceptable 733 0.8 661 0.7 652 0.7 489 0.5 
			 O34 Acquittal after trial 86 0.1 107 0.1 124 0.1 83 0.1 
			 O35 Other 824 0.9 487 0.5 323 0.3 245 0.2 
			  
			  Total prosecutions dropped 12,663 13.9 12,290 13.6 12,509 12.8 12,198 11.7 
			  
			  Total completed crown court cases 91,358 - 90,269 - 97,529 - 103,890 -

Hotels

Anne Main: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department spent on hotel accommodation for  (a) Ministers, (b) special advisers and  (c) civil servants in each of the last five years.

Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 
	(1)  for how many nights hotel rooms were booked by  (a) his Department,  (b) its agencies and  (c) the armed forces in each year since 2007.
	(2)  how much  (a) his Department,  (b) its agencies and  (c) the armed forces have spent on hotel accommodation in each year since 2007.

Kevan Jones: The information is not held in the format requested and could be provided in that format only at disproportionate cost.

Crime

Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice with reference to the answer of 11 November 2009,  Official Report, column 470W, on crime, how many people were  (a) found guilty at all courts and  (b) cautioned for all offences in (i) 1987 and (ii) 1988.

Maria Eagle: I refer the hon. Member to the answer provided by my hon. Friend (Claire Ward) on 11 November 2009,  Official Report, column 470W.

Mass Media

Grant Shapps: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how much was spent by  (a) the Homes and Communities Agency,  (b) the Tenant Services Authority,  (c) the National Housing and Planning Advice Unit and  (d) his Department on media monitoring in each of the last three years.

John Healey: The Homes and Communities Agency and the Tenant Services Authority were both created on the 1 December 2008. Between 1 December 2008 and 31 March 2009, the Homes and Communities Agency spent £8,475.30 (not including VAT) on media monitoring. Over the same period, the Tenant Services Authority spent £10,160.34 (including VAT) on media monitoring. The National Housing and Planning Advice Unit were established in February 2007. It did not subscribe to a media monitoring service in that financial year. For financial years 2007-08 and 2008-09 figures are not separately identifiable.
	In financial year 2008-09, the Department spent a total of £335,935.13 on media monitoring. The figure for the Department comprises the subscription charges to the Central Office of Information's Media Monitoring Service and externally procured contracts for national and regional press cuttings.
	In respect of monitoring for financial years 2006-07 and 2007-08, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) to the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) on 29 October 2008,  Official Report, columns 1138-39W.

Palestinians: Overseas Aid

Phyllis Starkey: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development on how many occasions he has raised Gaza access issues with his Israeli counterpart in the last 12 months; and on what such occasions the Israeli government has acceded to requests for access.

Michael Foster: Achieving improved access to Gaza is a priority for the UK Government and the wider international community. We raise the issue of access with the Government of Israel at all available opportunities. On 1 December the Secretary of State (Mr. Douglas Alexander) spoke with Ehud Barak, the Israeli Minister of Defense on improving access. Last month I met with Israeli Vice Prime Minister Shalom, and with Deputy Foreign Minister Ayalon. Earlier in the year both Douglas Alexander and I met with the former Minister of Welfare and Social Services, Isaac Herzog, and the Secretary of State also wrote to Ehud Barak.
	The collective lobbying of the international community has had some impact. Access for food products has improved since the end of the conflict in January, and in October small quantities of cement, plastic pipes and desalination equipment were allowed in for water and sanitation projects for the first time. Despite this, we remain very concerned about the situation in Gaza and will continue to press the Israeli Government for improved access for humanitarian aid and reconstruction materials.

Christmas

David Davies: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills how many Christmas trees were purchased by his Department and its agencies in each of the last five years; what the cost was of those trees in each year; from where the trees were sourced; what account was taken of the sustainability of the sources of the trees; and by what process the trees were disposed of.

Patrick McFadden: The following information lists the number of trees for which this Department and its predecessors have purchased for reception areas in buildings on its Estate. The costs include installation, decoration and removal by our foliage contractors. Information as follows:
	
		
			   Number of trees purchased  Cost (£) 
			 2005 (1)2 661 
			 2006 (1)2 661 
			 2007 (1)3 1,099 
			 2008 (1)3 1,144 
			 2009 (1)3 1,144 
			 (1) One artificial 
		
	
	All trees, other than artificial trees, are sourced from UK growers who are members of the British Association of Christmas Tree Growers. All BCTG members are required to adhere to strict standards of sustainability. All real trees are recycled and turned into mulch. Artificial trees are broken down and then rebuilt the following year.
	I have approached the Chief Executives of the Insolvency Service, Companies House, the National Measurement Office and the Intellectual Property Office and they will respond directly to you.
	 Letter from Peter Mason, dated 9 December 2009:
	I am responding in respect of the National Measurement Office (formerly National Weights and Measures Laboratory) to your Parliamentary Question tabled on 07/12/2009 reference 2009/449 ] to the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, asking how many Christmas trees were purchased in each of the last five years; what the cost was of those trees in each year; from where the trees were sourced; what account was taken of the sustainability of the sources of the trees; and by what process the trees were disposed of.
	In each year one Christmas tree was purchased and the costs were:-
	
		
			  £ 
			 2005 30.99 
			 2006 39.99 
			 2007 49.99 
			 2008 57.53 
			 2009 59.95 
		
	
	The trees were purchased from local garden centres that used suppliers who managed their plantations sustainably. The trees were disposed of using the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames Christmas tree disposal system so that they are disposed of sustainably.
	The National Measurement Office has reviewed the sustainability of real against artificial trees and the carbon footprint of real trees is currently considered to be less than artificial trees.
	 Letter from Sean Dennehey, dated 9 December 2009:
	I am responding in respect of the Intellectual Property Office to your Parliamentary Question tabled 18 November 2009, to the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
	The Intellectual Property Office has not purchased any Christmas trees in the last five years.
	The Office has hired an artificial Christmas tree (£385 per annum 2005-2008, £500 2009) each year but this remains the responsibility of the owner.
	 Letter from Gareth Jones, dated 15 December 2009:
	I am replying on behalf of Companies House to your Parliamentary Question tabled 7 December 2009, UIN 305640, to the Minister of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.
	Companies House has not purchased any real Christmas trees in the last five years.
	 Letter from Stephen Speed, dated 15 December 2009:
	The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has asked me to reply to your question, how many Christmas trees were purchased by his Department and its agencies in each of the last five years; what the cost was of those trees in each year; from where the trees were sourced; what account was taken of the sustainability of the sources of the trees; and by what process the trees were disposed of.
	The Insolvency Service has not purchased any Christmas trees in each of the last five years.

Departmental Internet

David Davies: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills what redesigns of websites of  (a) his Department,  (b) its predecessors and  (c) its agencies were carried out since 27 June 2007; what the cost to the public purse was of each redesign; and when each redesign was conducted.

Patrick McFadden: The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) was created on 5 June by merging the former BERR and DIUS. A website at www.bis.gov.uk was set up. The design of this website was upgraded in September at zero cost, with all work done in-house by the Department's digital media team.
	BERR and DIUS were created in June 2007 from the former DTI and the former Department for Education and Skills (DfES).
	The DTI website was redesigned and rebuilt to reflect the priorities and remit of BERR. The site was relaunched in September 2008 at a cost of £528,912.
	An interim DIUS website was launched in October 2007. A redesigned version was launched in March at a cost of £105,167.
	I have approached the chief executives of the Insolvency Service, Companies House, the National Measurement Office and the Intellectual Property Office and they will respond to you directly.
	 Letter from Gareth Jones:
	I am replying on behalf of Companies House to your Parliamentary Question tabled 7 December 2009, UIN 305952, to the Minister of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.
	Since 27 June 2007 there has been no re-design of Companies House website, and therefore no cost to the public purse.
	 Letter from Peter Mason, dated 9 December 2009:
	I am responding in respect of the National Measurement Office to your Parliamentary Question tabled 7 December 2009, to the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
	The National Measurement Office website underwent a complete re-development between September and December 2008. The cost directly attributable to this work by an external web development supplier was £20,649.68 plus VAT. In addition it is estimated that across the Agency some £45,000 of staff time was devoted to this project.
	 Letter from Sean Dennehey, dated 9 December 2009:
	I am responding in respect of the Intellectual Property Office to your Parliamentary Question tabled 07 December 2009, to the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
	Cost to the public purse:
	The Intellectual Property Office website redesign cost £355,000.
	When the redesign was conducted:
	The Intellectual Property Office website was redesigned and launched on 1 December 2008.
	Background Note:
	The original website launched in May 1997. Recent enhancements to the website were introduced as a result of extensive user consultation. The new website better provides guidance and tools to professional users, individuals and businesses in the UK to help them better understand, manage and benefit from Intellectual Property.
	 Letter from Stephen Speed:
	The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has asked me to reply to your question if he will list any re-designs of websites held by (a) his Department, (b) its predecessors and (c) its agencies since 27 June 2007; what the cost to the public purse was of each redesign; and when each redesign was conducted.
	The Insolvency Service has not re-designed its website since 27 June 2007.